Skip to content

This is really fairly stupid

Ministers have been urged by Citizens Advice to protect consumers from a hike in household energy bills to pay for the proposed Sizewell C power station, amid international tensions over the rising costs of nuclear projects.

The UK’s largest independent advice provider has raised concerns that the project in Suffolk may offer “poor value for money” and called for greater clarity on its funding, in a letter to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

Whether Sizeell is a good idea or not isn’t the point here. Rather, who other than consumers is there?

That before we get to the manner in wich all the costs of renewables are dumped upon consumers so why not nuclear?

62 thoughts on “This is really fairly stupid”

  1. Who else is there? A subset of consumers, specifically the high-earning ones. The proposal is to pay this cost out of general taxation, the burden of which falls disproportionately on high-earners. (Yes I’m still bitter about my last tax return.)

  2. At least Sizewell C will produce reliable power. Did anyone mention how unreliable renewables are responsible for the massive increases in power bills?

    We’re missing a trick with smart meters. Let the Greenies be cut off whenever the wind doesn’t blow, and they’ll soon change their mind 🙁

  3. @AndrewM

    Is it a new thing that they ‘ask’ you to pay half of next year’s (notional) tax bill a year in advance? WTF?

  4. Hazel, look… the field… it’s covered with blood!

    This is going to be the Watership Down election. Men are coming to destroy our warren, but the Threarah says they’re here to pay our pensions and Bigwig has been arrested for hate speech.

    Sizewell C doesn’t appear to be part of anything you might describe as a joined up plan, unless it’s a plan to make British consumers pay the highest costs in the world for electricy, instead of merely the second highest as now. In 1954, Britain was building its own atomic reactors. In 2024 apparently we need to pay the French or the Chinese to do the same thing at vastly greater expense and stretching out over decades.

    In other plans, Rishi Sunak tells us he’s making long term decisions for a brighter future, but doesn’t specify whose future he has in mind. Sir Keir Starmer says… something something… about a ceasefire in Gaza. The Labour Party has very quietly and meekly submitted to Islam, perhaps we’ll see Sir Keir in a headscarf soon, simpering to imams.

    Unreality hangs in the air, like a hovering giraffe.

    None of this helps the warren. Fiver Farage sings a song of escape, but who’s listening? Do the rabbits want to live?

  5. Unreality hangs in the air, like a hovering giraffe.
    From where I’m standing, it looks more like a blue whale. Or possibly a brontosaurus been on a body builder’s diet. Whatever, I reckon gravity will win.

  6. Bloke in North Dorset

    snag,

    “Is it a new thing that they ‘ask’ you to pay half of next year’s (notional) tax bill a year in advance? WTF?”

    No, my wife has to do it occasionally and its quite a low threshold as she doesn’t earn much through her art. I used to have to do it some years ago, but I was doing quite well as a contractor.

  7. Talking of unreliable wind turbines, it appears that it’s not only lack of wind that makes them unreliable. Round our way there are several arrays of turbines and at any time there are nearly always one or two of them not working.

  8. Stonyground

    That’s because they haven’t been plugged in.

    Citizens Advice was an early example of leftist capture, going back as far as the late 1970s. Everything they say should be seen through that prism.

  9. No need or justification for Citizens Advice to get into the weeds of energy provision. What they need to do is ask for the sums. How much generation capacity will be needed when we all have EVs and heat pumps and the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine? Where is the plan for all the reliables to provide all those terawatts? (and how many would that be, if another ten million people arrive in the interim?).

    Questions that need to be asked and answered, except nobody seems to be interested who should.

  10. “Is it a new thing that they ‘ask’ you to pay half of next year’s (notional) tax bill a year in advance?”

    Its certainly not new, I’ve been doing it for decades ever since I started on Self Assessment in the late 90s. And its not a year in advance either. The payment in advance paid at the end of Jan relates to the current tax year we are in, 23/24, so that payment relates to money you’ve probably already earned and had, the second payment in advance is due at the end of July and thats after the 23/24 tax year has ended. Its still far better than having your tax removed at source by PAYE.

  11. The CAB is almost entirely state funded so this is yet another example of the state lobbying itself.
    Any “tensions” over the increased cost of building nuclear plants will be entirely confected by the green lobby. Of course costs have risen, we’ve just had a period of strong inflation. The costs of building windmills have risen so much that wind power companies have been wriggling out of contracts where they can and refusing to sign up for new ones even at ridiculous prices.
    Korea is finishing off a set of reactors in the UAE which will provide as much nuclear energy as Britain produces. It’s been done in little more than a decade.

  12. Sort of off topic:

    Just reading the wiki entry for AGW and something doesn’t stack up right for me.

    The article claims that 100% of scientists state that Climate change is man made. Is 100% even possible? I mean, consider the disagreements that occur between experts in any field you care to name, take for instance something I have a big interest in – weight lifting. There exists many views backed up with studies from strength and conditioning experts across the globe on how to achieve optimum strength, and that is just within the closed system of the human body.

    How on earth is everyone in lockstep over something like climate with it’s innumerable variables? It doesn’t even pass the smell test.

    Can someone better read on the subject also clarify something : have these scientists merely looked at the past few hundred years and decided that the rise in global temps is down to the industrial revolution? Just because they occured at roughly the same time?

  13. The article claims that 100% of scientists state that Climate change is man made. Is 100% even possible? I mean, consider the disagreements that occur between experts in any field you care to name

    We know scientists that don’t agree with CAGW (Judith Curry, Roy Spencer to name but a few, as well as the substantial numbers that are largely unknown and those that disagree but say nothing because of the persecution that goes with being a “climate skeptic”, so of course it’s rubbish.

    The only way they seem to view it is that if you don’t believe in CAGW you aren’t a “scientist”. Cockrot for sure, but not exactly news about The Cult.

  14. I’d believe a claim that 100% of scientists state that some part of Climate Change Global Boiling is man made. The tricky question is ‘How much?’, and the even trickier one is ‘What will the consequences be?’. To which the only honest answer (not that you’re very likely to hear it) is: “Nobody has a Scooby”.

  15. @Chris Miller – You can’t have it both ways, It’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, with the Antropogenic (being “caused by man”) baked in.

    Start throwing around the “some part of Warble Gloaming MIGHT be man made” and you’re a denialist in the eyes of the cult.

    These watermelons are just a façade for global Marxism though, they don’t really give a flying phuq about you, me or Gaia.

  16. There was something on WUWT a few weeks ago where someone made an attempt to apportion warming effects. They reckoned much of it was down to the Sun and about 6%, I think, down to CO2. Obviously not peer reviewed.

    What is really disgusting is some idiot legislators want to make doubting the AGW narrative a criminal offence!

  17. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ The only way they seem to view it is that if you don’t believe in CAGW you aren’t a “scientist”. Cockrot for sure, but not exactly news about The Cult.”

    If a scientist doesn’t have some reference to showing global warming is bad in their grant submission they don’t get funding, no matter how obscure the research topic.

    The ECB is openly making genuflecting to the green gods a condition of employment, no doubt most institutions have had an unwritten rule to that effect for some time.

  18. BiND

    ECB as in the English Cricket Board ? But Shirley they be all in favour if it, cos it’ll make the cricket season longer.

  19. Bloke in North Dorset

    Hmm, I just knew being lazy would come back to bite me: European Central Bank.

    But given the state of England cricket that ECB is probably the same.

  20. My worry is nuclear sites could be attacked by terrorists and foreign powers to wipe out entire chunks of land in the UK. What if an evil enemy fired a bunker busting bomb or other weapons, at our nuclear plants?
    I do not want nuclear energy to be forced on nations in the UK that do not want it. Scotland should not be forced to have nuclear energy, when it has hydro capability.
    Nuclear could cause a virtual holocaust in areas of the UK. Look at Chernobyl.
    The nuclear lobby claims every nuclear accident is good, by claiming nobody died, before the studies have even been analysed.

  21. NBiW, more people die in a year from gall bladder problems than have ever died from Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island or any other accidental nuclear disaster.
    I’m more likely to die of old age waiting for the government to institute a sensible energy policy than I am of one of your imaginary hobgoblins.
    And if we do have a nuclear holocaust in the Uk , my vote is London first.

  22. @Steve ” Men are coming to destroy our warren, but the Threarah says they’re here to pay our pensions and Bigwig has been arrested for hate speech.” LOL, good even by your standards Steve 🙂

  23. Nick Timothy in Telegraph being sensible for once. Did he tell May this in 2019 on her Net Zero by 250 law

    Nick Timothy: High energy costs are a [Gov’t> choice – and an act of national self-harm

    Governments like to claim that globalisation means that our destiny is beyond their control. That’s wrong

    In the five years before Tony Blair became prime minister, our industrial electricity costs were around 9 per cent higher than the average of the advanced economies comprising the International Energy Agency. By 2010, they were nearly 23 per cent higher, and for the past five years have risen to 52 per cent higher

  24. Look at Chernobyl.

    Sure. The wildlife is loving it. Flourishing in fact. And the number of three-headed wolves remains zero.

    The official exclusion zone has a 30 km radius. Most of that is relatively safe now.

    If you have a bomb that will take out a highly protected nuclear power plant, you would kill 1000 times as many by simply bombing a full Wembly stadium. SImilar clean up times too.

    Nuclear power plants are only really dangerous if they go into runaway fission. The rest is simply an expensive nuisance.

  25. @Jim
    Its certainly not new, I’ve been doing it for decades ever since I started on Self Assessment in the late 90s

    Who was PM and Chancellor in late 90s? Oh, Bliar and “Bigot” Brown

    @Marius

    +1

    CAB hi-jacked by Bliar and “Bigot” Brown

    +1 On South Korea nukes. That’s what we should have bought: mass prodced, cheap, fast. Instead Cameron desperate to suck-up to China went there. With Cameron gone, change course and suck-up to EU, France.

    Contract still isn’t signed, but Gov’t splurging over £2 billion on roads to nowhere etc, iirc £1.2bn already spent

    Meanwhile SMRs still in limbo. If Gov’t approved Bectel A1B, as on Ford carrier, companies would buy. ~700MW could be on stream in a year or two for ~£1.5 bn

    Gov’t won’t do it because they want RRs still on drawing board “Best in the world” SMR

  26. @Tractor Gent
    What is really disgusting is some idiot legislators want to make doubting the AGW narrative a criminal offence

    Adolf Trudeau:

    Daily Sceptic: Senior Canadian Legislator Tables Bill to Jail People Who Speak Out in Favour of Fossil Fuels

    A curious clause bans the suggestion that the burning of some hydrocarbons and the emissions caused are “less harmful” than other fossil fuels. This provision would make it illegal to state the scientific fact that burning natural gas produces less than half the carbon dioxide than the burning of coal. While coal emits 1/2 the CO2 of wood…

    Whatever the facts based in science or economic observation, all these ‘wrong’ thoughts can be punished with a C$500,000 fine and two years in prison…

    This is a UN, WEF trial before global rollout. Same as lockdowns, hate crime, online censorship, ESG, DIE, Trans inc in nurseries & schools, Sadiq Khan’s C40 Cities, UK100, Agenda 21 and 30, WHO Pandemic Treaty…

  27. Harry Haddock's Ghost

    We’re missing a trick with smart meters. Let the Greenies be cut off whenever the wind doesn’t blow, and they’ll soon change their mind

    I see a market solution opportunity here. Legislate that any tarrif solf as “green” or “renewable” (Ecotricity for instance) must only be seen be sold to smart meter households, and that a sufficient number of those should be cut off when renewables aren’t generating sufficient electricity to meet demand. Suppliers would remain liable for any costs of property damage, personal injury, etc caused by supply interruptions.

    The market would then immediately demonstrate the true price of renewable energy.

  28. I read that Greenpeace said there ha e been 1 million extra cancer deaths due to Chernobyl. And were there not thousands of children made sterile due to it?

  29. There has also been a big increase in thyroid cancer among children in the region around Chernobyl. Including Ukraine, and Belarus. So I am against nuclear energy.

  30. Humans are not wolves. Just because wolves are resistant to cancer that does not mean the children with thyroid cancer are.
    Also evidence suggests thyroid cancer increases infertility.

  31. Greenoeace are the good guys and are honest. They Have no reason to lie.
    Do not fall fornthe propaganda f the nuclear lobby . It is like listening to the propaganda of tobacco companies.

  32. Greeenpeace are the good guys and are honest. They Hlhave no reason to lie.
    Do not fall for the propaganda of the nuclear lobby . It is like listening to the propaganda of tobacco companies

  33. Saying nuclear energy has killed nobody is like saying tobacco has killed nobody. It is like judging how dangerous smoking is by saying if someone has not died 1 day after smoking tobacco. Nuclear energy is normally a killer due to medium to long term health issues.
    I am not an expert. But!
    I do not trust the Nuclear lobby, they have a vested interest to put out propaganda that Nuclear energy has killed nobody just like the tobacco industry had a vested interest co claim tobacco is good for you. I trust greenpeace over big business.

  34. The vast majority of people see Greenpeace as the good guys. I am talking sincere truth. Fake Laughter is a sign you have no argument.

  35. Not Bloke In Wales.

    So you have no argument just insults. It is always a signal you have lost the argument when you just resort to insults. Grow up. Act your age not your shoe size.

  36. Bloke in Wales, troller of trolls

    This chat gpt thing is shit at posting blog comments.

    It can’t be ChatGPT, that is supposed to have at least some intelligence even if artificial.

  37. The vast majority of people see Greenpeace as the good guys. I am talking sincere truth.

    Actually, this comment isn’t shite.

    Far, far too people truly are this fucking stupid. Modern education, the onslaught of Marxist brain-washing, dumbing down – we all know the drill…

  38. Harry Haddock's Ghost

    If I wanted the opinion of an old fart I would have broken wind. lol.

    I don’t wish to sound critical of your rapier like wit, but surely if you were to pass wind, that would be listening to a new fart?

  39. Not if I farted a few hours ago.

    Pf. It is not communist to want a good environment. The Soviet Union had nuclear power plants. And I am sure iI do not need to remind you that Chernobyl was in the Soviet Union.

  40. The trouble with Greenpeace is that they are chronically unable to be truthful. My AI states

    “The official death toll from the Chernobyl disaster is 31 people, including two initial deaths and 28 deaths from acute radiation syndrome (ARS) within a few weeks of the accident. However, long-term estimates suggest that up to 4,000 people could eventually die from radiation exposure, including an estimated total of 3,940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia among the 200,000 emergency workers, evacuees, and residents of the most contaminated areas.”

  41. But the official death stats are impacted by the nuclear lobby. They lobby to have the official stats lowered. You can see this when after EVERY nuclear incident the propagandists for nuclear declare NOBODY died. Which is like listening to the tobacco industry declare that 2 days after someone smoked a cigarette the person did not die so therefore smoking is safe. The nuclear lobby work really really hard to get everyone to believe nobody died at Chernobyl. I do not trust the nuclear lobby it is like listening to the tobacco industry to what the death stats are for smoking.
    Greenpeace are honest, they have NO reason to lie.
    Who would you believe on the death stats for nuclear energy the nuclear lobby or Greenpeace?

  42. It was actually a book published that claimed 1 million deaths due to Chernobyl up to 2004 alone. Greenpeace has different stats. But I always go for the higher stats because I really do not trust the nuclear lobby at all. They are just far too eager to claim nobody died after every nuclear accident. I find it disgusting.
    We should go for renewable energy. Not the most dangerous energy source that could cause another Chernobyl.

  43. One of the amusements of this is that renewables have a higher kill rate than nuclear. The largest energy related death event is the collapse of a hydroelectric dam in China – 300 k deaths or something. But even in the UK it’s higher. More people walk off roofs while installing solar than have been killed by nuclear.

    Facts, pesky things

  44. Ah, Big Nuclear. Makes a difference from Big Oil I suppose. Given the small amount of energy that is generated by nuclear power globally (about 10% of electricity generation apparently) one wonders exactly where they get all the money to spray around like water paying off academics and news media to make their industry look good. It is odd though that all those Lefty university professors and media types are happy to take Big Nuclear’s money and lie through their teeth for them…………..

  45. I seem to remember that the coal industry has killed more people through death, long term injury and disability than pretty much any other form of energy from mining to electricity production and effect on both consumers (like the London smog from the Victorian era up to 1960’s).

    That’s just the UK, globally the figures of dead, disabled and suffering must be in the millions, especially with both India and China still going for broke with coal power generation.

    As for Greenpeace, it’s just Marxism for middle class women, much like the Green movement as a whole.

  46. But the difference is that measures can be taken to stop people being killed by floods.
    And a flooding disaster would be short term.
    A nuclear accident or terror attack on nuclear plants could kill off virtually the entire country, and make chunks of the UK uninhabitable for centuries. No hydro electric dam collapse could do that.
    And my worry is that a few bunker busting bombs, targeted by evil terrorists on our nuclear energy plants could literally wipe out the UK in a few hours. That cannot be said about hydro, solar, gas, coal or wind ,or any other energy source. Even if a terrorist destroyed every solar or wind device the UK would still exist. Even if every coal mine blew up, the UK would still be able to support humans.
    The nightmare of what could happen with our nuclear plants has not happened yet. But look at 911. The fear is not what has happened but what could happen. I do not see the point in having potential country destroying nuclear plants as sitting ducks for evil terrorists dotted around the UK for terrorists to destroy. What is the point in that? Look what Chernobyl could have been. And the nuclear lobby is well funded, and powerful.

  47. If you are going to talk nightmare scenarios, then as well as terrorists turning the UK into a nuclear wasteland you really have to talk about what would happen if a 100% renewables grid hit an extended period of time when the wind wasn’t blowing and the sun wasn’t shining (either at all, or much). Given the West’s reliance on electricity I would say its not fanciful to suggest that Western countries would collapse entirely if the electricity grids went down, in very rapid time if this occurred in winter, as is most likely, as winter contains periods of high demand and low wind and solar generation. Not least because in order to get a grid back up and running from a dead stop (a Black Start) you need large power stations capable of providing large amounts of steady power without needing electricity to start itself, ie coal fired power stations.

    If the grid goes down in an all electric world (ie all energy use has been defossilised) there would be no communications network, no internet, no transport, no heating of any kind other than burning stuff, no lighting. Remember there would be no generators as they require fossil fuels. All backups would be batteries, which once empty are useless as there’s no grid to recharge them. Hospitals would have no power, care homes would be freezing morgues, there would be no food in the shops, and no way of getting more there, nor even getting it out of the fields because all farm machinery would be motionless too. How soon before people start to starve to death? How many deaths would occur in such a scenario? It would make Mad Max look like a nice holiday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *